Trial reportTrials2014
Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01480362 (Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Clinical Effectiveness of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Wounds When Compared to Standard Wound Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Clinical Effectiveness of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Wounds When Compared to Standard Wound Therapy
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- NPWT resource use compared with standard moist wound care in diabetic foot wounds: DiaFu randomized clinical trial results.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Therapeutic strategies to enhance proliferation in diabetic wound contraction: a comprehensive review from 1991-2025.Acta diabetologica · 2026Review
- Outcome of Vacuum-Assisted Closure Technique in Skin Grafting Over Anatomically Challenging Areas.Cureus · 2026Article
- Effect of posture on photoplethysmography signals from the posterior tibial artery in adults with and without type 2 diabetes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diabetic foot ulcers: A devastating complication of diabetes mellitus continues non-stop in spite of new medical treatment modalities.World journal of diabetes · 2022Review
- Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy on chronic wound healing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Belitung nursing journal · 2022Article
- Ten-year analyses of the German DRG data about negative pressure wound therapy.International wound journal · 2017Article
- Leg ulcer in a patient with Rothmund-Thomson syndrome.SpringerPlus · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn August 2010, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) decided that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) would not be reimbursable in German ambulatory care. This decision was based on reports from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), which concluded that there is no convincing evidence in favor of NPWT. The aim of this diabetic foot study (DiaFu study) is to evaluate whether the clinical, safety and economic results of NPWT are superior to the results of standard wound treatment. METHODS/
designThe DiaFu study is designed as a national, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical superiority trial with a special focus on outpatient care in Germany. Competent patients in inpatient and outpatient care suffering from a chronic diabetic foot wound for a minimum of four weeks may be included in the study. The trial evaluates the treatment outcome of the application of a technical medical device which is based on the principle of NPWT (intervention group) in comparison to standard moist wound therapy (control group). All treatment systems used in the intervention group bear the symbol of free trade capacity in the European Union (CE mark) and will be operated within normal conditions of clinical routine and according to manufacturer's instructions. Primary endpoints are the time to complete wound healing and the rate of wound healing achieved in each group within the maximum study treatment time of 16 weeks. Primary endpoints will be confirmed by blinded assessment of wound photographs. DISCUSSION: The DiaFu study will provide solid evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of NPWT until 31 December 2014, the date when G-BA plans to decide on future reimbursement of NPWT in both ambulatory and in-hospital care. The study is designed to comply with all quality requirements of G-BA and IQWiG and will contribute to evidence-based wound care in Germany. The study has been initiated by the statutory health insurance companies in Germany and is co-funded by two manufacturers of NPWT systems.
trial registrationClinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT01480362 (date of registration: 23 November 2011).German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00003347 (date of registration: 22 November 2011).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.